

62 d Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, j Report 
Sd Session. f i No, gji. 


JUDICIAL PROCEDURE OF UNITED STATES COURTS. 


April 26, 1912. —Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 


.; 

Mr. Davis of West Virginia, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
submitted the following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany H. R. 16461.] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration 
the bill (H. R. 16461) to regulate the judicial procedure of the courts 
of the United States, report the same back with certain amendments 
and with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass. 

The several amendments as reported are as follows: 

1. On page 1, line 8, insert after the word ^^judgmenU’ the words 
“decree or order,” so that the line as amended will read “that no 
judgment, decree, or order shall be set aside, etc.” 

2. On page 1, line 9, after the word “court,” strike out the word 
“in” and insert in lieu thereof the word “of,” so that the bill as 
amended will read “courts of the United States” instead of “courts 
in the United States.” 

3. On pages 1 and 2 of the bill, strike out all after the word “crimi¬ 
nal,” on page 1, line 10, down to and including the word “parties,” 
on page 2, line 2, and insert in lieu thereof the words “on account of 
any error which does not injuriously affect the substantial rights of 
the party complaining.” 

4. On page 2, line 3, after the word “may,” insert the words “in 
his discretion.” 

The amendments suggested are designed to perfect the form of the 
bill without in any essential particular affecting its purpose. 

The bill, as originally drawn, was prepared by a committee of the 
American Bar Association, by which also it has been under discussion 
for five years. In an amended form it passed the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives unanimously on the 6th day oi February, 1911, and in the 
message of the President sent to Congress on December 21, 1911, we 
find the following recommendation: 

The American Bar Association has recommended to Congress several bills expediting 
procedure, one of which has already passed the House unanimously, February 6, 1911. 
This directs that no judgment should be set aside or reversed or new trial granted, 






2 JUDICIAL PEOCEDUKE OF UNITED STATES COURTS. 

unless it appears to the court, after an examination of the entire cause, that the error 
complained of has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties, and also 
provides for the submission of issues of fact to a jury, reserving questions of law for 
subsequent argument and decision. I hope this bill will pass the Senate and become 
law, for it will simplify the procedure at law. 

Similar legislation to that now proposed has been adopted in Illinois, 
Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin and by constitutional amendment in 
California; has passed both houses of the Legislature of the State of 
New York, and on the 2d day of April, 1912, was before the governor 
of that State for his signature. 

No doubt a similar rule has been applied without express statutory 
mandate in the courts of other States. The necessity for Federal 
legislation on this subject is well illustrated by a comparison of the 
language of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Railroad Company v. O’Reilly (158 U. S., 334) and its language in the 
case of Cunningham v. Springer (204 U. S., 647). In the former of 
these cases it is said: 

While an appellate court will not disturb a judgment for an immaterial error, yet 
it should appear beyond a doubt that the error complained of did not and could not 
have prejudiced the rights of the party duly objecting. 

On the other hand, in the latter case, it is said: 

These three illustrations * * * illustrate the importance of a strict applica¬ 
tion of the principle that the excepting party should make it manifest that an error 
prejudicial to him has occurred in the trial in order to justify an appellate court in 
disturbing the verdict. 

In other words, in the first of these cases the Supreme Court holds 
that an error is presumed to be prejudicial until the contrary appears, 
and in the second, that an error is presumed to be harmless until the 
contrary is made to appear. It is the purpose of the first section of 
the present bill to enact in so far as the appellate courts are con¬ 
cerned that in the consideration in an appellate court of a writ of 
error or an appeal judgment shall be rendered upon the merits with¬ 
out permitting reversals for technical defects in the procedure below, 
and without presuming that any error which may appear has been 
of necessity prejudicial to the complaining party. 

The second clause of the bill is drawn so as to provide a method 
by which in a proper case a verdict on questions of fact may be taken 
on the trial, reserving questions of law for more deliberate considera¬ 
tion either by the trial judge or in the appellate court. It authorizes 
the court to direct judgment to be entered upon the verdict or upon 
the point reserved, if conclusive, as its judgment upon such point 
reserved may require. This amendment gives additional value to 
the trial by jury. It will prevent the delay, expense, and consequent 
injustice caused by new trials upon every issue when the judgment 
of the appellate court differs from that of the trial court upon some 
point of law. 

To quote from the opinion of the New York Court of Ap])eals in a 
recent case: 

It frequently happens that cases appear and reappear in this court after three or four 
trials where the plaintiff on every trial has changed his testimony in order to meet the 
varying fortunes of the case upon appeal. 

Extreme instances of such delay may be found in the Hillmon case 
(145 U. S., 285; 188 U. S., 208), where the second judgment of reversal 
was 23 years after the trial began; and Springer v. Westcott (166 


JUDICIAL PKOCEDURE OF UNITED STATES COURTS. 


3 


N. Y., 117), where there were four appeals and the recovery was $900 
for the contents of a trunk. 

The common-law practice of demurrers to the evidence and judg¬ 
ments non obstante veredicto embody the same idea’ with some 
limitations, while the judicature act of England carries the same 
principle and has so justified itself in practice that in that country 
final judgment is rendered on appeal in 90 per cent of the cases in 
which the judgment below is reversed, and in only 10 per cent of the 
reversals is a new trial ordered. 

Your committee believe that the reforms embodied in this bill are 
wise and consonant with the promise of Magna Charta, that justice 
shall be denied or delayed to no man and that the administration of 
justice shall not be so cumbrous, dilatory, and consequently expen¬ 
sive that it shall be obtainable only by the rich. 


o 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 028 001 703 6 




